User talk:Hobartimus

This user may have left Wikipedia. Hobartimus has not edited Wikipedia since 29 February 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Click here to leave a new message.

To better understand your point of view, if in your opinion Walachian equals not Romanian (as generally accepted), what Walachian means? Please elaborate.--Bluehunt (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the difference is that Walachian was the term used by the source in the 1400s context and Romanian was the term used by you in the 1400s context. Hobartimus (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 195.xxx you mean?

Anyway, I'm really frustrated at the inability of coming to terms with an intelligent version in thosearticles. While Romanian nationalism has been promoting the most unintelligent sophistry about how the Hunyadis represent Romanians (the inverted logic one finds in jingoism), the Hungarian nationalist response of removing info about their roots even from several possible accounts is ridiculous. I also supported and will support the Vlach/Walachian/Wallachian terminology for cases where it refers to a vague medieval ethnonym.

In any case, the blind revert war not only damages the texts as is, it prevents them from moving on - and they desperately need better sourcing, proper formatting, much more detail, more neutrality etc etc. I have once tried to deal with at least one of them years ago, and, having been alienated by both sides, I have given up. Interestingly, the superficial changes I made still survive largely in both, outside the fragments "at stake" - which probably means that I did do a good job back then. Still, is there really no way to stop the nonsense and help turn these articles into something informative? Dahn (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting this mistake. I'm not sure how I let that one slip through. Regards, Hayden120 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hobartimus. I see that you are the submitter of the most recent sock case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte, so I hope you may know his pattern. There is an editor who showed up at ANI who appears to be a nationalist POV-warrior. He favors Romanians at the expense of Hungarians. If you have a moment, could you take a look at User talk:EdJohnston#User:John.Edwards.1967 to see if this pattern is familiar? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I might be so bold, what exactly was the problem with the version that was currently up? It was a consensual wording and also edited to follow WP:NCGN, could you please abstain from reverting to previous versions without stating a valid reason? Thank you  wlad 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What IAR argument? Now do you get it? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new article Language law of Slovakia, if you have time, expand it a bit more. Let's not exaggerate anything, the whole thing speaks for itself, so let's quote respected and known sources. We need more info on the exact terms of the law and which points (plus the philosophy) are being criticized and how. Qorilla (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just put in a block request. Best to block the vandal 203.217.31.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) than to protect several pages! Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NW (Talk) 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Why? Feketekave (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hobartimus. Someone has complained about User:Aradic-es at ANI. At first sight, he appears to be pushing a Croatian POV, but it is hard to get a complete picture. I am wondering if some of his changes might be justified. At Habsburg Monarchy, I see that you made this edit. So is all that stuff basically unsourced and incorrect? This material is repeatedly added by 195.29.221.170 (talk · contribs), an IP based in Zagreb. It seems possible that this IP is the same person as Aradic-es. Thanks for any knowledge you can provide on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobartimus. Firstly, this edit [1] must be annulled, because it cancels many informations (we can easily find sources about IOC statement, from Slovakian OC website, which speaks about Slovakia's membership in IOC during WW2).
Generally speaking, there is a lot of confusion in wikipedia about many statehoods during WW2. CZE situation was a clear situation of debellatio, because Germany not only occupied CZE but (differently from Norway or Greece) it also disbanded that country. When we speak about "debellatio", we speak about a concept of international law. Later, surely, an important POLITICAL fact occurred, the recognition of Benes Government by UK & Co in 1941. This was a very important political fact, but we must distinguish law from politics, the position of a part of the world (even if very important) from the position of general international community.
I saw wiki pages about history of CZE, an I found very few sources. I found pages about first, second, third, forth, fifth republics, but outside wiki, I ever heard only three phases of CZE history: a democratic CZE from 1918 to 1939 with a restauration from 1945 to 1948, a communist CZE from 1948 to 1990, and a federal CZE from 1990 to 1992.--Cusio (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hobartimus, could you please read this article's lead *thoroughly*? Thank you. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I get other villages started in same way in a week or so.Starzynka (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not dead then, just resting. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me more details about what i did wrong at the 2 uploaded files? I wanted to replace the previous image with the legend in Dutch with the same picture where the legend is in English. PS i've never uploaded files before so I don't know very good how to work with files —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue over that map showing Hungary under Louis I is still pending. I have answered you in the talk page of Hungary that none of the successors of Ivan Alexander was a Hungarian vassal or had anything to do with Hungary as that map suggests. --Gligan (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i presumed that you are Squash Racket, because i already sent him a message. My mistake. I have written an explanation in the discussion page. iadrian (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you remove my

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

form from the article ? iadrian (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

Exactly. Removing significant parts of a page's content without any reason. That's what you are doing. Where is this no frivolous explanation??? There is none. And even with explanation the size of the blanking is so large that it constitutes a deletion of the most substantial part of the article and thus would require an Afd to delete the article. Hobartimus (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation is clearly given in the summaries. The current state of the article is unacceptable and it even violates the previously reached consensus. Substantial deletion is nothing extraordinary and its size per se does not make it legitimate or illegitimate. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be completely in the dark when it comes to legal issues, more so when the international law is in question. Your comparison with Iranian hostage crisis is misplaced. Firstly, there is no such thing as a threshold that must be reached for an attack to be considered a real attack. If you try to hit a policeman, you don't have to actually hit him to be charged with an attack on a public official. You can't even insult him, that's punishable as well.

Secondly - international law and customs are not rigid, an attack in an unstable region is perceived differently than an attempted attack in what is considered as the developed part of the world.

Thirdly - it's an attack on a diplomatic building, diplomatic vehicle and the diplomat himself. You are deliberately downplaying the significance of the incident by labeling it the 'shouting incident', you completely ignore the fact that there was actual physical violence involved (pushing the car to the roadside).

Please note, that although I am vigorously arguing for the incident's inclusion, I am not broadening the section beyond what is necessary and reasonable. You on the other hand still maintain the position, that several vulgar quotes by a drunkard deserve ten times more space in the article. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with using images from commons? I noticed you removed an image from an article that's used on about 15 other wikipedias. Shouldn't we wait for the resolution of this, on commons? If it's problematic it will be surely deleted. Thx for the reply. Hobartimus (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking also because the image in question (of Orbán) claims to be from the Hungarian wikipedia and it also appears there. I happen to know for a fact that they are copyright fetishist, not even allowing a single fair use image, so it is extremely unlikely that the image is a vio. Hobartimus (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian Wikipedia contains a single minor use of the Commons image (not in the Orbán Viktor article, despite the presence of a non-free image used on a by-permission basis). I found no evidence that the image has been uploaded to the Hungarian Wikipedia, and the Commons uploader has contributed numerous images lacking proper source information. —David Levy 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see the image, in their main Orbán article, it's different. It seems that's an OTRS approved image.[2] Can't we use that somehow? Hobartimus (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's for noncomercial use only and the source (fidesz.hu) must be noted. The image also cant be modified and manipulated and should be used for illustration of Fidesz related articles on Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia does not permit the use of such images. —David Levy 16:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Hobartimus, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Hobartimus/sandbox4. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user was the creator of at least one article about Croatian expressways, so I left him a message regarding a transition we had in that area. It's nothing critical. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate your input, however there some issues to be discussed on the talk page to get consensus. im not adding anything back to the page (except the link) until we get consensus. Hope we can discuss it out without waiting for silence=consensus ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

as I understand some of the external links I added recently were removed, seemingly because "Wikipedia is not a collection of links". I only added one link for each of the pages I edited. And each link, at least in my view, is highly relevant for the specific page.

The page I have linked to is a free non-commercial provider of election statistics in European countries. I simply added the link for each country that is covered by the database (for example in the "Elections in Austria" article). So why was the link removed from the Austria article, while it is not removed from the "Hungary parliamentary election 2010"?

As I am a new user, I might have misunderstood something; can you please elaborate on why some of the llinks were removed?

Guideed (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. how is his production conected with hungaria? he visited slovak elementary school, in sabinov was hungarian school too, why he chosed slovakian school? It was time of magyarization, it was because of his slovak origin (ethnicity). I never told he is not hungarian painter. but his origin (ethnicity) is slovak, like Petofi. Its true and you cant delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.9 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did I wandalize to put slovak version of name of Tokoly and latin name of towns. Hungarian language was not codified in that time, so please use Slovak names or historical names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its in Samos Tomasik book from 1873 the name is Malkotenti. There is title of Tokoly the "Tot kiraly", in old hungarian it means "Slovak king", in german resources is "kuruzten konig". Folk names, same like "King of Upper Hungary". He had not official title. Its also part of Slovak history, he was probably comunicate in german, becouse "Emerich" in his signature and fact is that around him it was a lot of local Hungarus lover nobility of slovak ethnicity (Radvansky, Jánoky, Szimray, Géci) so he used slovak language too. Its reason why tot kiraly. And name of Kežmarok in that time it was in latin, so why do you change to Hungarian? Do you know when finished the lation as offcial language in Hungaria? I hope yes, and look when it was Tokoly born. So it should be latin name or present slovak name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its bad you dont know about your history, where it was 250 years the coronation of hungarian kings :) and second bad thing is you dont know maps, just look to map and there is the biggest part of royal hungary? it was ethnic slovak area with german king only name was hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my last edit.I was editing the See also section and I don't know how the page got deleted excluding the section "See also".May be it's my browser or internet connection problem.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 12:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, If I may, I would like to ask for your opinion. Since I am not sure and there are isolated examples of disputed regions(which can`t compare to Romania) and this is not a "big thing" but at Targu Mures talk page[3], there was an anomaly, it was selected as a Wiki project Hungary, which is obviously wrong. I change it and one user added the Hungary project also. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Wiki project Hungary (for example) are only for places that are in Hungary? I started a new thread there and if you could participate there[4]. Cheers. Adrian (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of blindly reverting those who you think are socks, I might suggest you file an SPI case and request a CheckUser. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources to the Budapest Timeline. Further citations will be coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N.11.6 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]